On Fre, 2010-02-19 at 14:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:33:30AM +0100, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
[...]
> Basically often when people write:
> if (!foo == bar) { ...
>
> What they mean is:
> if (!(foo == bar)) { ...
Ugh. The IMHO better way is
if (foo != bar) { ...
Or do we need
#define unless(cond) if (!(cond))
(as in perl)?
> But if they really do mean the original code they could just write
> this so it's clear to everyone:
> if ((!foo) == bar) { ...
Well, since we have a boolean/0-or-1 on the left side, there actually
shouldn't be too much cases to compare in that way to another value.
> To me it's like "==" vs "=". Of course, every programmer knows the
> what the difference is but it helps to have gcc warn about adding the
> extra parenthesis. Maybe I suck, but it definitely has helped me in
> then past.
At most your coding style sucks. We have all our syntax quirks ....
IMHO it is extremely uncommon style (which adds to "doesn't buy that
much" for me).
> I don't have strong feelings about this btw. The original code in
> oxygyn_mixer works fine. I just was making some changes to smatch and
> that was a new warning today. There is no method to my madness.
If there is method to madness, would it actually be madness? ;-)
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
